2026 Supreme Court mid-year review: Freedom of speech and expression

The Supreme Court has pronounced three significant decisions on the freedom of speech and expression since the start of this year. From the film title of a thriller starring Manoj Bajpayee to criminal appeals in the hate speech case against Member of Parliament Anurag Thakur, the cases were cloaked in controversy.

The Court has delivered a mixed bag, pronouncing “odes to fraternity” while refraining from concrete intervention.

“Sentiments” and Shaky foundations

On 19 February, a Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan disposed of a petition seeking a restraint against release, screening and broadcasting of a film previously titled “Ghooskor Pandat”. The petition was filed by Atul Mishra, from the Brahman Samaj of India, after media uproar over promotional clips of the film announced by streaming-giant Netflix.

The petitioner claimed that the film hurt religious sentiments as the title uses the term “bribe-taker” while referring to the Brahmin caste.

The Bench recorded the respondent’s “positive and conciliatory” decision to withdraw and change the title. While hearing the case, the Bench appeared to be batting for both sides, observing that “sensibilities are fragile”, that viewers cannot be “over-sensitive” but also adding that the title was against “morality and public order”. While the matter did not escalate due to the film maker’s assurance, Justice Bhuyan authored a separate opinion, noting a necessity to “restate the first principles”.

Justice Bhuyan revisited rulings on Ore Oru Gramathile, Aarakshan, Bandit Queen and other films while reiterating the meaning of “fraternity” and the duty of all citizens to promote harmony under Article 51A. He emphasised that speech and expression must be protected irrespective of one’s agreement or disagreement with the content in question. Recalling Imran Pratapgadhi v State of Gujarat (2025), Justice Bhuyan emphasised that “we cannot be so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a poem… can be alleged to lead to animosity.”

Refusal to intervene in hate speech matters

On 29 April, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta considered 13 writ petitions, eight contempt petitions and two criminal appeals regarding alleged hate speech incidents. These included the spread of rumours around Tabligh-Jamaat community during the Covid-19 pandemic, speeches at the December 2021 Dharam Sansad in Haridwar, and slogans raised by Bharatiya Janata Party leaders Anurag Thakur and Pravesh Verma just before the 2020 Delhi riots.

Petitioners flagged that there is a legislative vacuum and reluctance of State authorities in enforcing the existing laws. They sought directions for additional laws on hate speech, relying on the 267th Law Commission report (2017) to argue that the current framework is more reactive than preventive, designed for isolated acts rather than systemic dissemination of divisive content.

The Bench dismissed the petition asserting that it cannot assume the role of the Legislature when a law already occupies the field. It refrained from issuing directions for a continuing mandamus on the grounds that such a measure is only warranted in case of demonstrated failure of State authorities and not apprehension alone. Interestingly, the petition had survived in the Court for a prolonged time until its dismissal. It had passed through multiple benches. Initially, the Court had shown a proactive approach seeking the Union government’s response on the possibility of a separate law to legislate hate speech. It had also directed the registration of suo moto cases against instances of hate speech.

The Judgement did note instances of State refusal to register FIRs and recalled Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) to underscore the mandatory nature of the obligation. With regard to the speeches made by BJP leaders, it concurred with the High Court that no cognisable offence was made out as the phrase “gaddaron” did not refer to any specific community despite the context in which the speeches were made.

Regional language rights

On 12 May, in Padam Mehta v State of Rajasthan, a Bench of Justices Nath and Mehta held that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right of every child to receive primary education in their mother tongue or regional language.

Clarifying that this right is not confined to languages in the Eighth Schedule, the Bench directed recognition of Rajasthani as a regional language to be included in school curriculum and teacher recruitment examinations.